Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting (these are circulated separately)

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 April 2017 were confirmed by the Members present and were then signed by the Chairman.

An addendum to the agenda was circulated before the meeting.  A copy of the addendum can be found on the DBC website on the following link:

https://democracy.dacorum.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=159&MId=515

To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies of absence were received from Councillor Whitman.

To receive any declarations of interest

A member with a disclosable pecuniary interest or a personal interest in a matter who attends

a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered -

(i)            must disclose the interest at the start of the meeting or when the interest

becomes apparent and, if the interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest, or a personal
interest which is also prejudicial

(ii)           may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter (and must withdraw

to the public seating area) unless they have been granted a dispensation.

A member who discloses at a meeting a disclosable pecuniary interest which is not registered in the Members’ Register of Interests, or is not the subject of a pending notification, must notify the Monitoring Officer of the interest within 28 days of the disclosure.

Disclosable pecuniary interests, personal and prejudicial interests are defined in Part 2 of the Code of Conduct For Members

[If a member is in any doubt as to whether they have an interest which should be declared they

should seek the advice of the Monitoring Officer before the start of the meeting]

It is requested that Members declare their interest at the beginning of the relevant agenda item and it will be noted by the Committee Clerk for inclusion in the minutes.

Councillor Guest asked Members to remember to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary or other Interests at the beginning of the relevant planning application.

An opportunity for members of the public to make statements or ask questions in accordance with the rules as to public participation.

You need to inform the council in advance if you wish to speak by contacting Member Support on Tel: 01442 228221 or by email: Member.support@dacorum.gov.uk

There are limits on how much of each meeting can be taken up with people having their say and how long each person can speak for.  The permitted times are specified in the table above and are allocated for each of the following on a 'first come, first served basis':

·         Town/Parish Council and Neighbourhood Associations;

·         Objectors to an application;

·         Supporters of the application.

Every person must, when invited to do so, address their statement or question to the Chairman of the Committee.

Every person must after making a statement or asking a question take their seat to listen to the reply or if they wish join the public for the rest of the meeting or leave the meeting.

The questioner may not ask the same or a similar question within a six month period except for the following circumstances:

(a)       deferred planning applications which have foregone a significant or material change since originally being considered

(b)       resubmitted planning applications which have foregone a significant or material change

(c)       any issues which are resubmitted to Committee in view of further facts or information to be considered.

At a meeting of the Development Management Committee, a person, or their representative, may speak on a particular planning application, provided that it is on the agenda to be considered at the meeting.

Councillor Guest reminded the members and the public about the rules regarding public participation.

A Parrish introduced the item and said it had been referred to the committee due to the contrary views of Bovingdon Parish Council. Members must decide if the applicants has satisfactorily shown that activities can be carried our without noise disturbance for surrounding neighbours. There have been 650 noise complaints since the start of the two year trial.

Brian O’Sullivan, Jonathan Barden and Dr Peter Cox spoke in support of the application.

Kevin McLoughlin and Ed Clarke spoke in objection to the application.

In his role as ward councillor, Councillor Graham Barrett spoke in objection to the application.

Members were concerned that the applicant had failed to follow and adhere to the current management plan in place and questioned whether it would be a good idea to extend. Members agreed to decrease the extension period from one year to six months.

It was proposed by Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe and seconded by Councillor Birnie to grant the application in line with the officer’s recommendation but decrease the extension period from one year to six months

Vote

For: 10                         Against: 3                    Abstained: 0

Resolved:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1.    The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued on or before 6 months of the date of this permission, and the land restored to its former condition in accordance with a scheme of work submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason:  The proposed use could be detrimental to the amenities of the locality, contrary to Policy CS12 of the Dacorum Core Strategy September 2013,  and the local planning authority wishes to have the opportunity to review the development in the light of operational experience.

I Keen introduced the item and said it had been referred to committee as it the application was originally referred to the Development Management Committee  as the application is a large scale major (over 10,000m²) and involves a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The proposed amendment to the permitted retail use was not a matter previously considered by committee.

Phil Marsden spoke in support of the application.

It was proposed by Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe and seconded by Councillor Matthews to delegate the application to the Group Manager of Development Management with a view to approval.

Vote

For: 13                         Against: 0                    Abstained: 0

Resolved:

That planning permission be DELEGATED to the Group Manager, Development Management, following the expiry of the consultation period and no additional material considerations being raised, with a view to grant subject to the following conditions:

T Rennie introduced the report and said it had been referred to committee as it was a large scale major development with a linked contribution to a s106 agreement.

Catherine Bruce spoke in support of the application.

William Jahn spoke in objection to the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Birnie and seconded by Councillor Clark to grant the application in line with the officer’s recommendation.

Vote

For: 11                         Against: 0                    Abstained: 2

Resolved:

That planning permission be DELEGATED to the Group Manager, Development Management and Planning with a view to approval subject to the withdrawal of the holding objection from Highways England; agreement from Hertfordshire County Council Highways about the proposed mitigation works to the Breakspear Way/Green Lane junction; and completion of a planning obligation under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and subject to the following conditions:

J Doe provided an overview to members regarding the green belt and heritage issues. R Herbert then introduced the item and said it had been referred to committee as it had been called in by the Ward Councillor Alan Anderson.

Jane Orsborne spoke in support of the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Matthews and seconded by Councillor P Hearn to grant the application in line with the officer’s recommendation.

Vote

For: 12                         Against: 1                    Abstained: 0

Resolved:

That planning permission be DELEGATED with a view to approval subject to notification being sent out to the Secretary of State in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 and subject to the following conditions:

M Heron introduced the item and said it had been referred to the committee due to the contrary views of Bovingdon Parish Council. It had been deferred for further information at the previous DMC meeting.

Malcolm Leach spoke in support of the application.

Kathy Little spoke in objection to the application.

In his role as ward councillor, Councillor Graham Barrett spoke in objection to the application.

Due to the lack of a proposer and seconder to grant the application in line with the officer’s recommendation, it was proposed by Councillor Matthews and seconded by Councillor Maddern to overturn the recommendation and refuse planning permission.

Vote

For: 8                           Against: 0                    Abstained: 5

Resolved:

That planning permission be REFUSED due to the following reasons:

1.         The proposal, by virtue of the scale of units, their site coverage and the lack of spacing left about them, would add an unacceptable amount of bulk and mass across the site. This would result in an overdevelopment of the plot which would disrupt the rhythm of the immediate streetscene. The proposal therefore fails to integrate with the streetscape character and is contrary to Policy CS12 of the Dacorum Core Strategy 2013.

1.    The proposed units would afford direct views of habitable rooms of surrounding units and the private, primary, amenity space which benefits them. As such, the proposal would fail to preserve the privacy of surrounding properties, contrary to Policy CS12 of the Dacorum Core Strategy 2013.

As the rules of the Development Management Committee state, at 10pm, it was proposed by Councillor Guest and seconded by Councillor Matthews to continue the meeting until 10.30pm.

Vote

For: 13                         Against: 0                    Abstained: 0

N Gibbs introduced the item and said it had been referred to committee due to it being called in by Councillor Bhinder.

Lee Hopkins and Jon Tankard spoke in support of the application.

In his role as ward councillor, Councillor Bhinder spoke in objection to the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Matthews and seconded by Councillor P Hearn to grant the application in line with the officer’s recommendation.

Vote

For: 9                           Against: 1                    Abstained: 3

Resolved:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Councillor Tindall declared he had received a phone call regarding this application but informed them he could not get involved in a conversation about the application. He reserved his right to speak and vote on this item.

A Harman introduced the item and said it had been referred to committee as it had been called in by Councillor Williams.

Richard Farris spoke in support of the application.

Jane Edmonds and Janice Marshall spoke in objection to the application.

In his role as ward councillor, Councillor Williams spoke in objection to the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Maddern and seconded by Councillor Fisher to grant the application in line with the officer’s recommendation.

Vote

For: 2                           Against: 6                    Abstained: 5

Due to there being no majority to grant the application, it was proposed by Councillor Riddick and seconded by Councillor Bateman to overturn the officer’s recommendation and refuse the application.

Vote

For: 6                           Against: 2                    Abstained: 5

Resolved:

That planning permission be REFUSED due to the following reasons:

Policy CS12 of the adopted Core Strategy requires development to respect adjoining properties in terms of: i) layout; ii) site coverage, iii) scale; iv) height;  v) bulk. The proposed development would cause significant harm to the character of the area by virtue of its form, height and siting which discord with the established building line and subsequently would appear as a bulky, prominent visual intrusion within the area. 

The application would therefore fail to respect the quality and character of the surrounding area; in addition to failing to secure good standards of amenity for existing and future occupiers of land and buildings. Therefore the proposed fails to comply with saved policies 10, 13, 18, 21, 111, appendix 3 and 7 of the Dacorum Local Plan (1991) and policies CS1, CS4, CS10, CS11 and CS12 of the Core Strategy (2013), the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

This application was deferred to the next committee meeting.

This application was deferred to the next committee meeting.

This application was deferred to the next committee meeting.

The following appeals were noted:

1.    Lodged

2.    Withdrawn

3.    Dismissed

4.    Allowed